Unions Have Strategy With Suit Over Layoffs

February 04, 2003|By MARK PAZNIOKAS; Courant Staff Writer

The clock started ticking on a new political game at 10:33 a.m. Monday with the filing of a lawsuit accusing Gov. John G. Rowland of trying to illegally coerce state employees into wage-and-benefit concessions.

Intended to pressure the governor into a deal that would reverse nearly 3,000 layoffs, the suit asks a federal judge to certify the legal claim as a class action on behalf of all 45,000 unionized state employees.

If a judge certifies the suit as a class action, the unions would be unable to withdraw the action without court permission, even if Rowland made an offer acceptable to the unions.

``I think there is a short window in which a settlement of the overall problem will produce a settlement of the lawsuit as well,'' said David S. Golub, the Stamford attorney hired by the unions to bring the case.

Golub pointedly noted that the potential plaintiffs' class is as diverse as the state workforce. Some workers would happily settle for reinstatement to their jobs. Others will insist on monetary damages. Some may want to prove the governor violated their rights.

``You get this case out a month or two, there are going to be real problems,'' Golub said.

The unions obviously hope that starting a countdown whose duration cannot be predicted or controlled by either side will pressure the governor to a settlement.

The civil rights lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Hartford also further personalizes what has been an unusually antagonistic series of negotiations between the administration and unions.

The only defendants are Rowland and his budget chief, Marc S. Ryan.

And the litigation presents the prospect of Golub quizzing Rowland under oath about his attitude toward organized labor, first in a deposition and possibly later in testimony before a jury.

But the governor has been down that road before, testifying last summer in a federal lawsuit brought by the New England Health Care Employees Union, District 1199.

The union contended then that the state undermined its collective bargaining rights by agreeing to cover the nursing homes' costs during a strike. In a claim echoed in the new lawsuit, District 1199 said one of Rowland's motivations was to punish a political opponent. The union endorsed Democrat Bill Curry for governor.

U.S. District Judge Janet C. Hall ruled last fall that the Rowland administration interfered with collective bargaining, but she found no violation of the union's civil rights. Each side claimed victory.

The new lawsuit has been assigned to Judge Alvin W. Thompson, a Clinton appointee who came to the court with no background of political activism. The former managing partner of Robinson & Cole is the first black judge named to the state's federal bench.

Rowland dismissed the litigation at a news conference Monday afternoon as a publicity stunt, yet he refused to answer questions.

His press spokesman, Chris Cooper, said the governor was concerned about presenting a tightly focused message, not fearful of expressing an opinion that would be damaging in court.

``He had some specific points he wanted to make, and he wanted to have what was on the record confined to that,'' Cooper said.

But Ryan, the governor's co-defendant, said no one should be surprised if the Rowland administration becomes reticent regarding the concession issue.

``With a lawsuit like this, they will start using our remarks,'' Ryan said. The administration, however, will continue to comment on its last offer to the union, Ryan said.

It was unclear from whom, if anyone, Rowland obtained legal advice before the press appearance. He is unlikely to be defended by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

Golub is a former law partner of the Democratic attorney general. But more significantly, Blumenthal and the other state constitutional officers -- Treasurer Denise Nappier, Comptroller Nancy Wyman and Secretary of the State Susan Bysiewicz -- are potential witnesses.

Each offered budget cuts to the administration that could have avoided layoffs on their unionized staffs, offers that the administration declined.

``The one thing I can say is the attorney general's office understands there is a potential conflict,'' Ryan said. Outside firms will be interviewed.